Legal Research
Cases
R v Albert Ooi

R v Albert Ooi

Case [2017] VSC 157 6 April 2017

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Breach of Trust

Unconscionable Conduct

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Not Restricted

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 00185

THE QUEEN

ALBERT HOE OOI

---

JUDGE:	JOHN DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF PLEA HEARING:	2 MARCH 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	6 APRIL 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v ALBERT OOI
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 157

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Conspiracy to defraud the State of Victoria – Receiving secret commission – Awarding government contracts in excess of $15M to related companies with conflict of interest – Offences occurred over seven year period – Key player – Plea of guilty - Undertaking to give evidence against co-offenders – Other mitigating circumstances – Total effective sentence 8 years with a minimum of 6 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Queen	Mr K T Armstrong with Mr A J D Sharp	John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant	Mr N J Clelland QC with Mr C T Carr	Galbally & O'Bryan Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Albert Hoe Ooi, on 16 February 2017 you pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud contrary to common law and one count of receiving a secret commission contrary to s 176(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.

The first count charged that, contrary to Common Law, between 1 January 2007 and 9 January 2014, you conspired with six others[1] to defraud the State of Victoria in the awarding of works contracts. The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years imprisonment.[2]
[1]Barry Wells, Michael De La Torre, Andrew Ooi, Darrel Salter, Andrew Hayes and Graham Davis; each of whom are subject to separate proceedings arising out of these events.
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 320.

The second count charged that, contrary to s 176(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, on 28 February 2011, you corruptly received a secret commission from Furphy’s Foundry Sales Pty Ltd while an agent for the Department of Transport, being outdoor furniture valued at $6,740. The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years imprisonment.[3]
[3]Crimes Act 1958, s 176(2).

The charges to which you have pleaded guilty arose out of your employment variously with the Victorian Government’s Department of Infrastructure (DOI), the Department of Transport (DOT) and Public Transport Victoria (PTV). Your offending occurred over a period spanning seven years.

The charges arise from an investigation by the Independent Broad-Based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) named ‘Operation Fitzroy’ into allegations of corrupt activities in procurement in the Victorian Government’s Transport departments.

You were employed by the DOI and DOT from October 2004 to January 2012 in the role of a project coordinator for bus infrastructure works, and then as a contractor to DOT and PTV from January 2012 until January 2013. Along with your charged co-offender, Mr Barry Wells, you were involved in a senior executive role with regard to project management and the selection of successful contractors for civil works projects for the DOI, DOT and PTV. You also participated in the review…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Albert Ooi

Details

AGLC: R v Albert Ooi [2017] VSC 157
Case: [2017] VSC 157
Decision Date: 6 APRIL 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Albert Ooi, the appellant stood before the Court of Appeal, contesting the severity of his sentence. Ooi was convicted for his involvement in a conspiracy to defraud the State of Victoria. His role included receiving secret commissions and directing government contracts, worth over $15 million, to related companies despite clear conflicts of interest. The illicit activities spanned a period of seven years, during which Ooi was a key player. He entered a plea of guilty and committed to providing evidence against his co-offenders, along with other mitigating circumstances that he presented in court. The appeal focused on whether the original sentence was appropriate given the nature and extent of his involvement, as well as the mitigating factors presented.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in this case of significant fraud and deception. The court needed to balance the gravity of the offences with the mitigating factors, including Ooi's cooperation with authorities and other personal circumstances. The court also had to consider the necessity of deterrence and general deterrence in light of the public trust violated. The key question was whether the original sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of the crimes and provided sufficient punishment and deterrence.

The court, in delivering its judgment, recognised the substantial breach of public trust and the significant impact on the State of Victoria. However, it also acknowledged Ooi's early guilty plea, his cooperation in providing evidence against co-offenders, and other mitigating circumstances. The court determined that while the crimes warranted a severe sentence, the totality of mitigating factors could justify a reduction from the initial sentence. Ultimately, the court affirmed the original sentence of eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years, finding it to be commensurate with the gravity of the offences and the mitigating factors presented.

Orders